Marginalia

[coalescent]

I was going to link to blog posts by Ken Macleod and Charles Stross, but ninebelow beat me to it, in this post on instant_fanzine (and threw in some comments from M John Harrison to boot). Interesting perspectives on the state of sf and the state of sf criticism; go take a look.

On a similar note, I've been able to finally read Andrew Butler's article 'Thirteen Ways of Looking at the British Boom', thanks to its reprinting in Steam Engine Time. For context, also reprinted is Paul Brazier's strongly negative review of the article (and the rest of the issue of Science Fiction Studies in which it appeared), which I am currently mulling over.

The Tom plan for Higher Education.

There's an official livejournal community for the Arthur C Clarke Award: clarke_award.

Now all interviews until the end: Lou Anders at the Agony Column ("I would like to come forward and confess that, yes, I am a Campbellian editor"); Stephen Baxter at Strange Horizons ("The universe is an active character in a hard SF story. That's what makes hard SF unique"); and Margo Lanagan and Sean Wallace at benpeek's place. And speaking of interviews, I owe some of you questions, don't I? Dang.

The Amazing Adventures of Lethem and Chabon.

And finally: a film of The Sparrow ... starring Brad Pitt?

Comments

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

The Amazing Adventures of Lethem and Chabon.

Snarkalicious!

Though perhaps she has not read Girl In Landscape.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Neither have I. Elaborate ...?

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Well, Storms is taking a pop at them for being manchilds (menchildren?) with a blokish Hornby-like obession with boy's stuff. Girl In Landscape is a coming of age/sexual awakening story of a young girl on an alien planet.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

I find myself in equal parts sympathizing with Tom's plan and wanting to stamp it into iddle bits. This is probably a good sign.

Also, Candace Bushnell in that outfit is not something I ever needed to see.

[kalorlo.livejournal.com]

*Reads the Tom plan* Dear god, putting living expenses money in the hands of student unions? We'd all be utterly screwed. People & Planet would donate it all to trees or anti-animal-experimentation activism (or campaign funding to get them into actual government...) Assuming they don't spend it all on doing up old bars in hideously expensive "trendy" ways that make people stop going to them. Our union can't be the only one incredibly bad at using the money it already has.

We also need to recognise that universities and colleges can only impart book-learning - well, they *mostly* do, but "can only"? What about all the practical stuff? Practising the desired skill does actually happen at universities, just in an environment where if you mess up, you don't lose some company lots of money. And surely creating lots of vocational colleges would be all about learning things practically. Apprenticeship, fine, but there's no reason this can't start at the college in question.

Not touching the "mickey-mouse degrees like media studies" bit...

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

Oxbridge has a lot of decentralisation, so sticking money in thehands of the individual *college* unions to spend on, eg, TVs and newspapers for the common room, cheaper drinks, would probably work quite well. I wouldn't want to see that run through Cambridge University Student's Union, even if we don't have the mad people and planet bit.

I, also, am not going to touch the bit about media studies with a long pole.

I don't agree that different universities should be allowed to set different rates of the hypothetical graduate tax int he same way that I object to differential top-up fees, ie I don't think it's fair to make people pay extra for going to a better university.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's fair to make people pay extra for going to a better university.

Why not? I was having this debate with Su the other night--personally, I'd be quite prepared to pay a weighted graduate tax, since I feel I've benefitted hugely from my education.

[dsky.livejournal.com]

"I don't think it's fair to make people pay extra for going to a better university."

Not only is it unfair on graduates, it's damaging to the "poorer" Universities as they end up... well... poorer.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Dear god, putting living expenses money in the hands of student unions? We'd all be utterly screwed.

Given that he also wants to pretty much change the working definitions of 'university', 'education' etc, I think there's probably a certain amount of wishful thinking going on. :)

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Ref Tom's plans. He has hit upon one issue which is huely relevant - Higher Education (or better yet, Tertiary Education) is not All About University. We *really* need to move away from the idea that there is something inherently better about the acquisition of knowledge (especially if simply for it's own sake) than the acquisition of skills, or a mixture of skills and applied knowledge. "Vocational" education is still regarded as the poor relation of academic learning, and I'm at a loss to know why. The vocational learning the a CORGI-registerd plumber has to acquire during their apprenticeship will probably save more lives than the academic learning acquired during an education in law, and yet is regarded as less worthy of respect. My tertiary education started with vocational education, and that learning has been an order of magnitutde more useful to me during my career than my degree.

Oh, and since, IMHO, a better educated society is a better society per se, I reckon that imposing an arbitrary cut-off point for free education is a specious concept. Contiguous education should be free. All education up to at least C & G, HND, Bachelors, etc level should be free.

I'll go away again now

[snowking.livejournal.com]

Oh, and since, IMHO, a better educated society is a better society per se, I reckon that imposing an arbitrary cut-off point for free education is a specious concept.

Yes.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Well, obviously. My problem, as I was saying before, is that I don't believe free education for all up to that level is sustainable at current levels. Either you accept that less people get tertiary education (of whatever form) but you pay for them all, or you accept that people should make some contribution (of whatever form) towards their tertiary education, or you accept that everyone should pay significantly more taxes to fund tertiary education.

Option 2 makes the most sense to me.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Oh, and since, IMHO, a better educated society is a better society per se, I reckon that imposing an arbitrary cut-off point for free education is a specious concept.

Indeed.

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

This is why I voted for Pope Su.

Also cookies.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

I love Su, too.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

So why stop at Bachelors degrees? Why should people doing Masters suddenly have to pay? ;-)

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

PS - you were right, Tom *really* needs to get a blog :-p

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Sadly I think he's given up reading this blog, so he's never going to see you say that...

[majuran.livejournal.com]

Have been reading threads with interest. Not sure its been mentioned (I usually miss these things) but tuition fees aren't the only barrier to a university education. In fact right now they're probably the last thing a student is worried about (althought starting with top-up fees next year it might have significantly more impact).

It's the cost of living that kills us. And it seems to me that that goes up when you go to a "better" university anyway. So adding a tuition fee topup is just making matters worse. And isn't it true that the "better" universities that are going to nab all the big charitable donations anyway surely (on account of their alumni and prestige), so do they really need more tuition fees as well?

I really doubt that applications will surge if tuition fees are scrapped because overall university is still going to get you into debt regardless, it's just that it's slightly less debt now than it would be with whatever kind of fee charging system you impose. The truth is, I think people that are determined to go to uni are going to go regardless of fees etc, and with fees just end up with a bigger debt load if their parents aren't willing/able to help them out financially through the course.

Also...

[applez.livejournal.com]

I'll see if I can get thommel to add anything, since Tom's concept suspiciously replicates some of the German & Swiss higher education models in use.

Re: Also...

[applez.livejournal.com]

She's exam-bound at the moment, but promised to check this out this weekend - so stay tuned education-minders. :-)

*concentrates on the important part of the post*

[hawleygriffen.livejournal.com]

And finally: a film of The Sparrow ... starring Brad Pitt?

Heeeeeeeee.

Re: *concentrates on the important part of the post*

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Dead to me!

[astromachy.livejournal.com]

The Sparrow starring Brad Pitt?
Oh, no. That can't be a good idea. Just shoot me now, and put me out of my misery.

Uh, hi. I'm here via yhlee, by the way.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Hey, it could work. He's not a bad actor, you know.

... No, you're right, he's just not Sandoz. *sigh*

And hi! Are you planning on staying? :)